ML20087E416

Urges Reconsideration of State of Nh Position Re Proposed Decommissioning Finance Plan for Facility.Wf Boyle Recommendations Encl

ML20087E416
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	01/13/1992
From:	Eaton I, Knowles A, Thibodeau E SEABROOK, NH
To:	Smukler L NEW HAMPSHIRE, STATE OF
References
92-015, 92-15, NUDOCS 9201210222
Download: ML20087E416 (7)

Text

_ __ _ _ _ _ .._____ _ _ __. _~ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _

l 1

TOWN OF h021klO00l1, O{Uh21111pGllir0 99 L AFAYETTE ROAD pf]

P.O. BOX 456 03874 0450 Telephone 474 3311

[O l

f 7

January 13, 1992 92-015 Larry Smukler, chairman

'inancing co'nmittoo 4000 Elm Stroot,-P.O. Box 3701 Hanchester, N!! 0?105-3701 '

Dear Mr. Smukler:

In Decembr , 1991, T. Willard Boy 30 mot with our board to diucuss the proposnd decommissioning financo plan for Soabrook Station. ..Mr. Boyle is Soabrook's representativo to tho l decommissioning committee. We considor Mr. Boyle's status en this '

L committoo to be to ronresent the interests of the Town of Soabrook and to act in a manner that provides for the greatest levol of i protection for che community in the progress of datormining decommissioning at Soabrook Station.

Boyle has prewonted this board the attached Mr. with dissenting opinion concerning aspects .of decommissioning of Seabrook Station and how it will be financed.

l Mr. Doyio'has raised I

a-number of concerns that have drawn the interest of this board.

L Wo beliove those -issues should be thoroughly addressed and that l his recommendation - to have the logislature revisit the intent of L RSA - 162-F as -amonded,. the 10 year old inw that created - the ldocomminajoning fund - be adopted.

! As the governing body of the Town of Soabrook, it is this i board's. responsibility to manage the prudential affairs of the community. That includos both now and in the future. If,ovon just some of Mr. Boylo's conclusions are correct, the Town of Soabrook will stand to - be . the greatest loser of the dacommissioning committoo's' latest. order for funding tho- decommissior.ing '

of i

-Seabrook Station. It is .the Town of Saabrook that will be the i benefactor of a radioactive mausoleum 11- -

s

?

(({

y /*"] I mOmo= n, ,

FR ADOCK-0500gg3 4\Y

l Larry Smukler January 13, 1992 aufficient action 10 not taken now to protect its residento, and i How llampshire ratopayors, from <,scalating decommincioning costs

, that are not funded. We otrongly urgo you to reconsidor your position on How Itampshiro Yankoo's Docomminuloning Plan, and to i considor the adoption of Mr. Doyle's recommendations.  ;

Singo1y, , / ,,

4 .4 4." 4 6 _.

~

i ElizabihA.Thiliodeau,l Chairman Board of Selectmen 7 " glj r - l if*- w8 J_

QIva n--Q .Eaton, Sr. ,

Ana 11. Knowloc, Jr.

• DOS /jsm CC: Governor Judd Gregg Sonator Davorly llollingworth Representativo Charles Folch Representative Frank Palazzo .

Reprosentative Jeffroy Brown j service List l

l L

N

. - , . . . . . - , . . , . . , - , . - ,- - , , ~ . - . . . --- w n --..-..-e.----.y z,m-.c -

,-,,+y-m-.m,er - . + . - .

g;cos r.

Committee member, Willard F. Boyle, representing the town of Seabrook does not concur with the majority vote of the committee on the new i

Refart and Order of November 26,1991, and justifies his obsent as follows.

l. I have been a continuous, active, member of this committee since its inception in 1981, when, at the initial meeting of the committee, Rep-resentative Barbara Bowler,[ author of the decommissioning amendment to RSA-162-F) briefed us on what she intended f or the RSA to accomplish.

Mrs. Bowler admitted to having placed the comrntttee in an extremely dif ficult position by asking as to estimate what something will cost at some point in the f uture, based primarily on unknowns, but said Ehe f ett it was essential to Drotect the tax /ratepayers in N. H from having to shoulder the clo. ire financial burden of decommissioning Seabrook altgr.

the plant had reached the enri of its useful lif e. The appropriate para-gr6phs do exactly what Mrs Bowlor intended for it to do.

2. A major portion of my disagreement with the committee is centered around a difference of opinion on the internrelation of the decommission-Ing paragraphs of RSA 162-F. A gel 3jleitzantrtg of the RSA shows how

" emphasis added" in some parts while omitting other parts gives the in-tended meaning a completely dif f erent look, and narrows the ' attitude granted to the committee in 1981. For example. F 1,11 contains the ever quoted phrase," complete their a.n_titjnald_energt oroducing liv 33", which would 'v that the legislature intended a fund based on the full planntrg cation of 40 yeart. However, that same paragraph btglas,"The

.legislatur9 further recognizes that to insure the nafely and well beina of lutRUD. llc _and future gener8110nt, a costly and comprehensive decomm!ss-loning procedure is necessary at the en(LQ1 the tiseful n.r. serviceable liff of. nuclear generating f acilities." When the " emphasis added" is f ocuseo at this point the intent is entirely dif ferent and exoards the lattitude of the committee.

3 F.21,llt broadens the committee's lattitude even f urther with the phrase,"Each commitLee Shall. rely on allayallajile..d3ta and f2DiriQDCe in dkiff.minirtg_LM amoun1_Qf fach funJJ.mcludir.tg Dnt not Iimiled_tL,kic "

4 F.21,lV provides somenhat less lattitudt % the public hearing process but oirects that,"InntifDDny_ErdentoJLat the hearings held persuant to

i

. X i 4 .

^

this paragraph shall be taken Intcasusjfferation_,"

5. F:22L opens the committee's decision making capability even further ,

when it states that the committee may alter the furid up or down at any time "For reasons including, but nqt1Lrntted to. etc., etc "

6L During the recent hearings the dollar estimates presented by the TLG Engineering study were defended, in part, by emphatic statements which ,

suggested that by adding more money than recomrnended to the f und, re- 2 ducing the collection period, or front loading the fund, th( resditing pay-ment schedule would be unf air to present customers and f avor future i i customersc The RSA doesn't address front loading directly, however, 1 references to funding and collection procedures appear to favor higher

, dollars and front loading of some typo. for example: F:19,Il says,"The monthly payment.Shall not be Jess than .......", F:20,Il mentions,"Any earn-ings of the f und .la.21CAER_0Llb2 SDEKlfJ:Lamsunt ..", and further, that the  ;

PUC shall determine how to equitably reduce rates to cuMomers,"To com-o pensate for gyfroavment to the furxL" These inclucicns imply that the  !

legislature expected there wovid be evcess money in the fund it decom-  :

missioning. Terrps like "not less than", "in excess of", and " overpayment" suggest the legislature had some type of front loading or " cost plus" con- ,

tingency in mind at the beginning.

7. The original study done using 1987 dollars by TLG Engineering and accepted by the committee has created a tunnel vision approach to

- decommissioning by the committee, in my opinion this has come about because each method of decommissioning h_s a separate cost figure, and since the DECON method was selected as the utsjLtd method, the DECON price tag was accepted. 'The RSA does not require the committee to tie the fund to the method. We might. desire the DECON method,' but if the knowledge, infermation and experience available do not logically or L morally tie the two together the committee should make its decision and ruling based on what we know and have experienced, not on what might be

-20 years down the rcao. Such is the case at this ruhng. Testimony at the -

recent hearirigs established that the latest best estimate for the opening  :

of a Federcl high level waste repository (spent fuel) has slipped again, _

' this time to the year 2010 New Hampshire wi_tness Cloutier highlighted th.s issue when he stated that,"that repository' due to Seabrook's priority,[apparently low) will not accept the spent fuel until the year 2019 PROBLEM; Seabrook went on line in 1990 and by present design the

^ ~

,. t.

plant has only 12 years of spent fuel storage on-site, which means that by 2002 the cooling pools are full. By 2014 Seabrook is 1QQEny.en110.sl0a

.tafgity., and more by 2019 when the Federal Repository,(w Nch does not exist at this point in time} ls supposed to start accepting om.syg1Altt If past experience with Federal estimates continue, that 2010 opening is very suspect. Since full scale decommissioning cannot take place until all spent fuel is reroved froin the site, and since Seabrook will have an abundance of it laying around in pools or casks or whatever------so much for DECON and rap;d dismantilng. As a resident of the town of Seabrook I most certainly want the " remains" of the plant gone at the eartlest date possible, but in light of the initial responsibility placed on us to ensure

.the_saf ety and well beinfl of the Dublic and ful.ure Oer,0.ca.1120L I sincel ely believe that until we have more reliable and better data to work with,.

SAFSTOR should be recommended. Tt.G Engineering estimates that the new 1991 cost of SAFSTOR is $413 million and I feel that just by

, coincidence this f!gure is realistic because if TLG's present DECON )

estimate of $323 million sh9uld escalate by an2LhArE1 miLLtcn.as his past estimate did then the finai cost f tgere would be $404 million. The '

committee would be better served all around by wnding for SAFSTOR and 1413 million.- Additior, ally, I arn conthually bothered by the personal knowledge that in 10 years on the committee, not a single time or money estimate has been accurate, or at best, overstated.. ....it is always.. . mcre ID.onev is ne.edh11Q_crger some NEW AND_ UNEXPECTED COSL

8. New Hampshire Yankee witness, Spitzer, in response to my questions at the recent hearings, stated that front loadingdttocer_lradminist,ered.

.c.Quld De accomolished Wjlh10.LRL_r.Aguja11qas. and withoutcreating a_tn but: den on owners or Investpri

. S Th11_C.0EDjltee is in the_naloue cosit t.oam having the authority to establMh whaleVer IVBd.15 Land o_avndrilleAgence it determines will best do the job 11 is time for us tolkoo goino through the motic01.bv simon Dlling in.llDLWtth r0C0mrne.ndations made bv New 'Ha_rnnshire Yar a teg1 enoinett,"because _we meet _an0'Jdly_anyway and if it-Is not riant

. Etcan f b it ne <t year? We nced toJ1 art considerino all the infortnation avMirfoie from every squtc's and mate..Egme coursjeous ar,d thouchtf ul decisions'to estiMilb LLVJuti and navmenLSchedul.g thr.t cJn survive thjt Ettytinv of the mandateaLannual meglina w11bp_VLgpnSJjLr_L( Chafgfl.

1Q,_ Recommendations: I f eel the committee would have serveg'LMublic

._,.,m:.r.o.

..~w.-.ga_J'.....m.1,_ . ,,,,,....._,-,_,.y w y, m, m._,_ w_,_m,,mww-,,,_.,,_ g ,. ,y ,.c%+,+ w#-~yw,-.~ev-my

1 he 11*rJnrrnent .end_ Lulu tellb.ya r d e rJng.ibt. fIdlowing; 1

R errmtat01U beMESICCR rattlWILOJJe.cnm m LS1LeniruLLlhe owner makes_ttractual selg1Len p1_decomminieningt

2. FunJ1ALlne_J 413 miilion 1eyei thraygh_yfar_2Q2ft

3. CDjltct Iund1_!nfDyALDIgnjnal[020Lh,.!y InetelnentL MS103 SR6Jnnual growth c01Lf2f_inr gntil theJ1orage_tgn13Jf all levels of wagitstabilize or dicliDE 4 Canitaue.Ine_ntesent 253 contingency _calculatad_tn_

Lel]Lc11he 2026_ Lime limitatiort

5. E.ront load _the fund in ILne with IRS regula110Ds as a contin-neDIy so tb.at. Scale el10tLCa!1.Damade to ct't into theAlf fcr-encthelween the fand_as.1LafC.Umulale13nd [ht_cpsts whIth Will.be requlte.d in the_arlyinLOLntemature deIommiss.ioning where the_ tax /ratfRayffs will.he Egngired_LOJay the lipn's sharf_01 tt at cnst i! /is a final.pynctuation_ts.iny._ dissent i s1rongly refomm.end_Lhf,LL1he commillf_e regLLQ.st the 1eg13)ature tQ [1Miew and uDdate RS A 152-F as DRproorI_att TtT dotymei1LleaxeL.tnach t0,19.,gesired. Dr.JDi.arjlyJue_tp l

c1Lr,umslancts which have_1 pen Dlace since jLyas writteg,many of _ which Pave _pJLrff. Lor indirect bearing on the df_tommissionino process The RSA contains many ambiguities and contradicts its own basic irtent of having suf ficient funds aval'able in the way it aoproaches the var:ous examples of early shut down and ultimate decommissioning. [F:22,all)

Based on Mr. i.aguardia's testimony that decommissioning incurs the great-est cost imrnediately af ter going on line, and for 10 years thereaf ter, and that there is little possibility of having enough money in the fund to pay fcr decommissioning at early shutdown, millions of dollars would h.3ve to be made up before an_y_ type _of decommissioning could start The RSA as presently written stops payments from rate payei 5 ar.d airects the committee, in conjunction with the PUC, to institute a revised scredule of funding needs.lf the dif ference between the costs of early decommission-ing and the f unds available is as great as testimony ar.d presented graphics have led us to believe, any revised schedule of cusicrner charges would most certainly be a t'urden on those future customers The

_ _ _ _ ._ _ _ _.. _ _ _ .._._ _ . -. ~ _ ~.

i committee would be deluged, and rightfully so, with complaints asking why we didn't plan for such a contingency by putting more money into the ,

fund earlier. This is conjectur e on my part at this tirne, but my intent is to emphasize that the legislature deserves the courtesy of being advised  ;

that conditions do exist, and could exist which are not adequately addressed by RSA 162-F as presently written.

/ & ~#

[

Willard F Bayle '

.Commitie_effsbe_rr rapfr.e_senting the ToyLQ of Seat 1r_p_gh I

L6CC tir suoydelol 99r0*rtBCO 09r XOO 'O'd OVOH 31.l3 AVdV'l 66 0.11ll9dlllI?" Il}3{ # ljllll.1() lid dONMO1

, -*